Mass Combat: Militray Tactics Old and New!

[Leopold]

Well since i was reading Caeser's Legions recommended by SHARK i got to thinking on some mass combat and how people deal with them as far as tactics. I for one like to use minatures and draw out on a board what goes were and how each army does what.

I was wondering if anyone else has some tactics they want to share from either reading, experience, or other wise. Here is one I gleaned from watching many thousands of hours on the history channel.


The Zulu nation led by Shaka Zulu in the early colonial days of Britan had a simple idea he called the Bull's Horns ( i think). The plan was simple, have 3 formations 1 in the center 1 on each flank. The goal was to move up the center drawing in the forces as the bull's head whilst the flanking forces moved forward and to either side moving wide. Doing this quickly with infantry (the zulu's had short spears and no aritllery) they were able to bottle up the forces in the middle using the brunt bull's head while the 2 flanking forces came from the side and behind in a pincer formation sealing the enemy forcing the enemy to fight on all fronts effectively cutting off retreat and encircling the enemy. They used this hundreds of times and as most of the infantry was fast, strong, and mobile it worked as planned. I have used this on my pc's and they have found that spreading out their forces stops this but it also leaves them able to be surrouned individually and seperated.


Modern Combat using vehicles:

Norma Schwarzkopf deivised a plan to lure the iraqi forces along the border of Saudi arabia using massive propoganda, rogue training and deceptive tactics. He threw a small contigent of armored vehicles into the west side while sweeping along with a massive force along the rear of the country sending in small (hundred or so) contigents into the country. The tactics were to out manuever and come from the south instead of the west as the iragis had thought we would do from having training missions that were basically troops storming the beaches simultaed to a amphibious invasion. By cutting off the supply chain and moving inward the Allied forces cut off the iraquis and surrounded them casuing massive surrendering and very lil allied casulties.



I am interested to see what everyone else has to say and how they have done mass combat and tactics they have used.

 

[SableWyvern]

Generally speaking, all strategies can be summarised as one of seven traditional "gambits" (sometimes combining more than one).

Penetration of the Centre (sometimes referred to as "Up the guts") - Fairly obviously, try to pierce the centre of the enemy formation with a single, main thrust.

Single Envelopment Hammer one flank, and then run down the line.

Double Envelopment As above, on both sides.

Attack in Oblique Order Mount attacks all down the line, preventing the enemy from manouevring or knowing exactly where the main thrust will come from. Gradually build up strength at one flank, until that flank caves.

Feigned Retreat Fall back, draw out pursuit, and then ambush/counterattack.

Attack from a Defensive Location Hold position in a defended location and mount offensive thrusts from there.

Can't remember the seventh one

From a modern perspective, one of the most basic small-unit infantry tactics is a flanking attack, wherein machinegun(s) lay down suppressing fire from high ground to pin the enemy, while an assault force moves through at right angles to the supporting fire. As the assault force hits the enemy line, the support fire shifts back to cut off the line of retreat.

In combat in all ages, the essential task is to "Sieze and maintain the initiative".



Here's a bit of extra tactial trivia for everyone as well.

The ideal use of a machinegun is not to have it situated in front of an enemy advance, where it swings back at forth strafing the enemy. Instead, it should ideally be situated to the flank, where it can fire right down the line of advancing enemy. To this end, in a defensive position, a machinegun's primary task should not be to protect itself or its own squad, but instead the front of a nearby squad, platoon or company.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I attempted to use old world formation fighting techjniques when I first began playing 3E, but it was a complete lost cause.

The presence of magic just changes things too much for formation fighting to be anything but a deathtrap.

I now (having learned) refuse to have my side of a conflict "bunch up"...it makes it too easy for area effect spells to engulf them.

I also do everything in my power to make sure that low level types (those without multiple atacks) are armed with reach weapons (longspear is nice and cheap). It allows them to essentially never allow anyone to take a full attack action by the simple expedient of backing up 10'...if the target refuses to pursue (and incur an AoO), leave him to the archers.

Whihc brings us t archers. Archers are way overpowered in 3E, so I make sure that any force is made up of (predominantly) archers. There is nothing that can be done in melee (IMO) that can't be done better by archers. The feats available to archers at low levels should make a melee fighter blanch.

Archers (particularly longbowmen as the extreme range of a longbow outstrips any spells I can think of) are usually set to have 50% or their number watch for signs of spellcasting, then fire at the mage. which tends to keep spells from totally dominating the field.

So, to recap:

1) Don't bunch up
2) Use reach weapons and constantly backpedal.
3) Have Archers make up 2/3 or your force, and have 1/2 of them on the lookout for spellcasters.

Keep in mind, this is all from a DM's perspective of large-scale D&D combat.

What small groups of PC's do is an entirely different story.

 

[mmadsen]

The presence of magic just changes things too much for formation fighting to be anything but a deathtrap.

Even without magic, none of the reasons for formation fighting exist in D&D. In fact, you can't even line up like a Greek phalanx or a Roman legion, one man per three feet, shields overlapping.

 

[Corinth]

I don't follow. Could you explain?

 

[Ace]

It is said that there are two types of warfare

Mobile and Static.

IMC static warfare is pretty much unknown for several reasons

first: The climate is hot, roughly equal to California

second: Magic on the battle field is common. according to my calculations 2/3 of the population has the mental ability to learn spells of up to level 3
This leads me to suggest a ration of 1 wizard or sorcerer per 25 men

third: area effect spells are very lethal capable of destroying enormous amounts of men and material, quickly and from any angle

fourth: a magic battlefield is very unpredictable. Summoned monsters, illusions and terrain alteration can screw with any large tactical formation.

Clerics are not allowed to fight in secular wars.

The cavalry option is out as well, in most areas horses are suceptable to an equine disease and will sicken and die within a few weeks.
This has no effect on a Paladins mount but Paladins are generally not found in large numbers.

A fighting force in Vinyar (the main island where I set my campaign) looks like this

One warband is 50 men plus 2 mages 3 units (battle) 1 scout, and one command unit with the two wizards attached

A basic unit-- which is a "mess" of 10 men

L3 human fighters
feats: wpn focus, shield focus, toughness
chain shirt, 3 javelins, longsword, shield

Command units are also 10 men but with magic items and they are higher level

Typical leader

L9 human warrior
feats: weapon focus, shield focus, toughness, social feat, combat feat
chain shirt/spell wrought +1 Spellwrought shield +1 spellforged sword+1 potions 2-4 sometimes magic items or three

plus his Looeys
L6 human warriors
feats: weapon focus, shield focus, toughness, social feat
MW chain shirt, MW Longsword, MW Shield, potions 2-4
feats: weapon focus, shield focus, toughness, social feat


scout units are 5 two man teams of
KOK Inflitrators level 5-10
Equiped with Longbows, MW studded leather, buclkes and a hand weapon + 2-4 potions and several medium magic items.

The Wizards are 5-10 level and equiped as per the DMG-- usually with flying, blasting, scrying and protective stuff



The National Army is arranged the same way except that in later years for every dozen warbands there is are 2 support "striders magic powered vehicles.

 

[Hejdun]

Infantry in groups is suicide. One fireball would kill 20, 30, 50 men at a time. I think it is best to think of mass combat in DnD through a World War I slant.

Think of what happened in World War I when an army charged an entrenched army with machine guns. Now, imagine an army charging a large group of wizards and sorcerors. Just about the same thing.

Therefore, armies began to fight smarter. So would armies in DnD. Instead of having armies marching and fighting on battlefields, I would think it would be more like World War I trench warfare. It's obviously suicide to to fight in large formations on an open battlefield, so why should you?

 

[Vaxalon]

So, to recap:

1) Don't bunch up
2) Use reach weapons and constantly backpedal.
3) Have Archers make up 2/3 or your force, and have 1/2 of them on the lookout for spellcasters.

This tactic would, to me, make your archers vulnerable to light cavalry in loose formation. They can be through their range band pretty quickly. Backpedaling lets the knights (with their lances) charge you for double damage every round. You'll need to set your spears against the charge in order to stop them.

I agree that the spear, in its various forms, is king of the battlefield.

 

[Stalker0]

Magics in DnD are very similar to heavy artillery and explosivies possessed by modern nations today.

Any large battle of infantry on a field with mages would be akin to having a large group of guys go against machine gun nests. Its pure suicide.

But wizards and mages have vulnerablilities very similar to artilery.

1) They are vulnerable when not protected by other forces (we all known how wizards do in melee combat)
2) They are very hard to replace.

Usally the early stages of a battle will be dealing with enemy magics. It is unlikely a large portion your forces are going to be dedicated at this point. This can be done with assasins (poisons work wonder on mages Aerial attacks, strike teams (PC adventure!!!) or your own mages throught spells and counterspells.

The large infantry force is only going to be committed when the mage threat is subsided, and then used to hold territory.

That's why I see a lot of PC adventures taking place before the battle, taking out key targets. And then the huge battle is usually just a fun scene to watch.

 

[Bhadrak]

I think you would have to have a great number of mages to make a substantial difference on the battlefield. And they'd have to be at least level 5 to make a difference.

And then you'd have to consider that the other guy probably has spellcasters too. While you're fireballing his scrub infantrymen, his mages are zeroing in on your mages.

What would happen would be just as others have suggested. Much like 19th century artillery would target enemy artillery, mages would target other mages.

So basically magic wouldn't have that much of an affect on the battlefield unless there was a disproportionate amount on either side.